Darkevilme wrote:The point of changing the carrier rules is they're needlessly complicated with the whole (divide your investment in carrier capacity by two, that's how many points of strike craft you get, but points invested in strike craft count double) thing.
Converting them to (1 point of carrier investment equals 1 point of strike craft which is worth 1 point of combat power that is strike craft) is simpler and thus better.
The primary arguement seemed to be with Siege presenting a step further (1 point of ship is worth 1 point of combat power, seen as whether this point represents a fighter wing or nova cannon is irrelevant to the only time this is treated as a solid mechanic there is no point in having carrier rules at all.)
Honestly I think Siege has a good point. I just don't happen to care enough to take over argueing it for him, i'm fine whichever way we go.
I think the only carrier rule that we really
"Things that directly cause harm to the enemy or strengthen your own side are worth points insofar as they do so. Things that serve only to carry stuff to the battle, but which do not directly harm the enemy or strengthen your own side, are worth zero points. Nothing can be worth points unless, when it goes into battle against a competent opponent, it is at risk."
From that we can deduce:
A ship that does literally nothing but reinforce the defensive shields of your other ships can be worth points, because it's strengthening your side. A squadron of fighters harms the enemy. Both end up in harm's way during battle. A carrier that launches its fighters from 3 AU away, then warps out, without ever actually crossing swords with the enemy... is not
to keep my original draft revision, but it isn't necessary and I'll compromise to this without any real misgivings.
Simon_Jester wrote:Yes. Other people have lists too, and you're not living in a privileged frame of reference. If I tell the people you don't like that they can't play because it would make Fin get huffy, I have to be able to say the same to those who are disliked by anyone else.
Care to guess where that ends?
Actually, you are part of the problem. You failed to show any leadership in the chat room and allowed it to devolve into a mob of heckling and some of the logs I was shown had a fuck lot of people acting like a bunch of hooligans. I am sure that is a great example of maturity by many of the people who played the last game. Yeah, great thing going there.
Fin, I really have to ask: do you ever even consider
that part of the reason people heckle you might be your own behavior and demeanor? That "The Mob" you decry is in fact what happens when you piss off several people at once and they all agree
that you deserve to be punished for your behavior?
What does it say about you, that you were more effective at turning the player consensus against you than anyone else in the game except possibly Chaotic Neutral? What possible moderator strategy could have prevented the whole Eye of Sashaterror from blowing up, in light of the fact that you
were involved? Was there anything you would ever have accepted as a resolution that didn't give you every damn thing you wanted? Or would you just have decided that the mods were mad with power and either ignored them or ragequit?
The widespread perception that this was the case is why you got badmouthed in AIM.
At first, I didn't actively try to prevent people from badmouthing you in AIM chat because I didn't think it was worth the effort to tell half a dozen annoyed people not to be mean about the person who'd annoyed them. At first, I didn't realize this could become a problem that would actually hurt people who'd done nothing wrong. I turned out to be wrong. I learned a lesson there. I do that sometimes.
If you'd wanted
me to speak on your behalf to get people stop saying mean things about you, all you had to do was ask. Don't get passive-aggressive and start whining today about how I didn't do it six months ago, when you were too stinking proud to ask.
Of course, again, I learned that lesson. So if I'm supposed to mod this thing, now I'm going to have to try and stop people being mean about you even if I privately agree with them. The sort of thing that someone like Siege might well have done in the first place- and the sort of thing I doubt you would ever do, because I don't really think you can step outside your own head long enough to second-guess your reflexes that way.
Now, if you think I really am part of the problem, then start the game yourself. Write the rules, proclaim yourself mod, and see what happens. I'll step aside, do nothing out of the ordinary as a player
, and watch to see what happens. I don't think it will end well, but maybe you'll surprise me.
You can judge me however you want for saying all this. All I ask is that you act on your judgment, and act like a sane grownup, instead of a petulant self-righteous twit.
I wrote:Personal rancor does not make for good decisions on that score.
All in favor of Fingolfin_Noldor getting to decide who plays in SDNW5, and who gets kicked out for [insert perceived infraction here], could you please raise your hand?
Oh? Like the rancor filled chats about me? Great thing going. Honestly, you haven't exactly convinced me that you are worthy of being a mod and quite frankly, your incapability to exert any form of control because you got too cozy with the mob shows you are incapable of being impartial.
Okay. Do it yourself. Set it up, try to lead it, see how many people want to keep playing.
If that's what you want, I'm game. Surprise me.
Fin wrote:And you know what? That was a big problem with the last game. The Mob. The group think got too suffocating and everyone tried to be "one with jones". But guess what? That didn't include contributing. For all the talk about collaboration, nothing came out of it. Everything was so slow, that I swear, if people quit the chatting and instead did actual brainstorming that led to an actual product, the game wouldn't have died. But the game died, and what does that show about the people who spent more time chatting than doing anything?
If you want to criticize me, fine- now, try and take responsibility for doing it yourself.
Fin wrote:And oh, what the fuck is the point of the new rules involving Carriers? Feeling too itchy to change the rules and exercise your new found super powers? Or was it White Haven, who obviously has a knack for writing silly stories, put you up on it?
Nobody put me up to it. The first draft I proposed was a simplification because I got sick of explaining the SDNW4 carrier rules to people
. When you have to explain the same rule to every person who joins the damn game, it's a sign that it's a pretty complicated rule. I figured it might be a good idea to simplify it. In hindsight, I'd probably have been better off not touching it, since proposing to change it meant opening up a stupidly heated debate over what to change it to.
But I didn't expect that at the time, especially from the people who kept nodding at me and saying rules weren't really that important- to me, being laid back about the rules entails not being actively hostile to them; wanting to overthrow something entirely is not the same as thinking it doesn't matter.
The second draft carrier rule, I considered because other people were eager for it- and because it was in keeping with 'points are points are points.' The third, I considered because it seemed like a compromise that could give them what they want (simplicity) and me what I think we need (not to treat fighters like rounds of ammunition).
"Super powers" my ass. What, haven't you ever seen a man do something for reasons that aren't surgically glued to his ego?